On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Tim Starling <[email protected]> wrote: > On 13/06/12 07:47, Chad wrote: >> 1) It scales much nicer. The current version looks absolutely awful at >> higher resolutions, and at lower ends becomes rather featureless. A >> version natively designed as an SVG (but keeping the original design >> ideas) takes care of that. > > In the proposed logo, the lines between the petals are hard to see at > 135px, and are almost invisible at 75px. With no shading, it just > looks like a yellow blob. > > The solid brown circle in the middle draws the eye, it seems large and > dominating, and it doesn't match the colour of the original. >
Indeed, it could use some cleanup. That being said, I like the original *intent* of it. > I'm not opposed to switching to a vector logo, I just think we should > try to do a proper job of it, say by contracting a graphic designer. > It doesn't need to be expensive. > We've also got quite a few talented graphic artists amongst the community, as well as a couple of people inside the Foundation who are good at this too. Perhaps we should see what they can come up with first :) > I don't know what file you're using as a source when you scale up the > logo: I couldn't find Brion's full-resolution original on Commons. > It's in /trunk/artwork in Subversion, admittedly only at 612px width, > still too small for print, but definitely better than trying to scale > it up from 135px. > It would seem a product of me using a poorly sized image and expecting it to scale. The example in your followup e-mail does look fine at larger resolutions. -Chad _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
